In your previous mail you wrote:
I'm pretty far behind on reading these voluminous e-mails, but
I would at least like to express again my belief that we could
go forward with the HAO as it is. If the downside is that then
there is vulnerability to (single!) packets being reflected back
to an unsuspecting home address, then:
- This is not a completely horrible problem
=> I agree but it seems there is the real point...
- Solutions involving use of security associations between
mobile and correspondent will be developed more rapidly if
there is motivation for use with Proposed Standard Mobile IPv6
=> a two phase approach works never in the security domain or
the triangular routing needs HAO support everywhere to make sense.
- We can be done almost immediately, and begin to productively
tackle the issues more effectively with experience.
=> I still believe the idea to send IPv6 questions to the IPv6 WG
is the correct one. In fact the decision of keeping or killing
the triangular routing is in the hands of IPv6 implementors
(they are supposed to read the IPv6 WG list from time to time).
I think there is a very real possibility that we are getting
stalled in worrying over a problem that is not going to happen.
=> to get stalled is the worst way to get a decision.
A couple of other points:
Francis Dupont wrote:
> => we don't need to wait because mobile IPv6 is not yet fully specified.
That is purely a matter of opinion.
=> or of what is the meaning of fully specified. It seems I am the author
of this statement so I meant "not yet ready for publication".
In my opinion, we are not moving forward because we are being
required to boil the ocean before even being allowed to take a drink.
=> this one of the drawbacks of security issues...
I am not commenting other remarks because we agree.
Well, technically speaking, it was already in Last Call last year (and
the year before). But I guess that is really a moot point.
=> is a new last call after important changes due to IESG concerns
required? It seems we'll get a new WG last call, and perhaps some
last calls about other (than the spec) MIPv6 documents.
Regards
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PS: you are in favor of keeping the triangular routing, aren't you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
